Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Summary: "Can states adopt protectionist cultural policies? What are the limits, if any, to state intervention in cultural matters? A wide variety of cultural policies may interfere with foreign investments, and a tension therefore exists between the cultural policies of the host state and investment treaty provisions. In some cases, foreign investors have claimed that cultural policies have negatively affected their investments, thereby amounting to a breach of the relevant investment treaty. This study maps the relevant investor-state arbitrations concerning cultural elements and shows that arbitrators have increasingly taken cultural concerns into consideration in deciding cases brought before them, eventually contributing to the coalescence of general principles of law demanding the protection of cultural heritage"

"Unilateral Arbitration Clause atau Klausul Arbitrase Unilateral (KAU) memposisikan satu pihak untuk mendapatkan hak yang lebih baik untuk mengakses penyelesaian sengketa, termasuk arbitrase. Sedangkan pihak lainnya direstriksi kepada pilihan tertentu saja. Karakteristik yang mengedepankan kesepihakan ini seringkali menuai isu, baik mengenai kebasahannya atau juga penerapannya yang melanggar kaidah super memaksa atau ketertiban umum. Demi mengetahui bagaimana peradilan menyikapi permasalahan ini, maka perlu diteliti dari putusan-putusan pengadilan yang telah menimbang terkait KAU. Putusan-putusan yang dipilih adalah dalam perkara Uber v. Heller di Kanada, lalu perkara RTK v. Sony Ericsson di Russia serta perkara Wilson Taylor Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v. Dyna-Jet Pte Ltd di Singapura. Pada kesimpulannya terdapat perbedaan dari setiap pertimbangan hakim mengenai ketidakseimbangan dalam klausul ini. Tinjauan dari hukum perdata internasional pun diperlukan sebagaimana dalam KAU kerap mengandung unsur asing. Ditambah juga salah satu lembaga tertua dari hukum perdata internasional, yaitu ketertiban umum, yang memiliki peran besar dalam menimbang mengenai KAU.

---

Unilateral Arbitration Clause (UAC) positions one party to obtain better dispute resolution rights, including arbitration. Meanwhile, the other party is restricted to only a particular choice(s) of a forum. The characteristic of a one-sided clause opens up a legal discussion on many court’s jurisdictions. Be it questioning the validity of the clause or worrying that the application of such a clause violates a nation’s mandatory rules or public policy. To see how the judiciary is addressing this issue, it is necessary to examine the court decision that has considered UAC. The decisions on Uber v. Heller in Canada, RTK v. Sony Ericsson in Russia, and Wilson Taylor Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v. Dyna-Jet Pte Ltd in Singapore may best represent this review. In conclusion, there are differences in each judge’s consideration regarding the imbalance in such a clause. A review of private international law is also necessary as UAC often contains foreign elements. Moreover, one of the oldest institutions under private international law-public policy-played a significant role in weighing the existence of UAC."